[sdiy] Proposed DSP board

[Tim Ressel]

Eric,

In general I don't like Microchip. Part of the is deserved, part is not. Your suggestion however is very tempting. You are correct in that the processors and tools are the same, so the learning curve is not affected, at least by much. I will have to think about this.

--TimR


--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Eric Brombaugh <ebrombaugh1 at cox.net> wrote:

> From: Eric Brombaugh <ebrombaugh1 at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] Proposed DSP board
> To: "sdiy" <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 1:09 PM
> Tim Ressel wrote:
> > Tom,
> > 
> > I am currently struggling with the codec issue. One
> possibility is the AD1998. The AD1988 had 6 in/10 out with
> one interface, but I need to go over it and see if I can
> bypass all the surround sound stuff. 
> > As far as the processor goes, you raise a good point.
> I picked AVR for the good reason of I know it have have used
> it many times. If I use a non-AVR then I'll be learning
> 2 new procs. Not sure I want to do that. But as you pointer
> out, my choice may lead to others having to learn 2 new
> procs. 
> > What to do? I could leave the co-proc off and let
> developers attach their fav uP to it. Or if there was just 1
> other proc choice I could put both on the board. But that
> sounds messy and wasteful. 
> > What you you think?
> 
> Perhaps consider the MCHP PIC24F family. There are parts
> there which have built-in USB (with OTG capability!) and the
> core processor architecture is identical to the dsPIC (sans
> DSP stuff). Then you'd only be learning 1 new processor
> architecture and the development environment would be the
> same for both parts.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=PIC24FJ64GB106-I/PT-ND
> 
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy